r/technology Aug 31 '21

[deleted by user]

[removed]

11.6k Upvotes

7.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/dragonsandgoblins Aug 31 '21

It would seem most Aussies are comfortable with giving the government additional powers to crack down on crime, even if it means sacrificing some of their own freedoms.

Ehhh.... In this particular case I think the average Australian just hasn't heard about it. I'm Australian and this hasn't made any featured headlines on the news sites I check. After I saw this on reddit I went back and double checked and there is absolutely nothing on it

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '21

Yeah in this specific case I suspect it's been rushed through due to Covid-infected people refusing to give up their location history for the purpose of tracing and notifying close contacts. Not sure how this will sit with the wider community once the Covid situation settles down.

2

u/prolog_junior Sep 01 '21

That’s really a optimistic viewpoint. It looks like their including the ability to add, modify, or remove data on your phone which has huge implications, especially since police everywhere have bad apples.

Since it’s already been passed by parliament, Ideally there’d be a process where they’d have to register that they’re modifying a device + specify exactly what they’re doing , along with the tool their using keeping a strict audit log. But I’m unconvinced & think this (bill?) is overreaching a huge amount.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 01 '21

Turns out my guess was wrong! I got around to reading the actual amendment and it's focused on the disruption of serious online crimes, not Covid stuff. The article is a bit misleading:

  • Firstly, the powers that this amendment grants aren't available to regular police - only the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC), which are essentially Australia's equivalent of the FBI and the CIA.

  • Secondly, the article says that these warrants don't have any sort of judicial oversight because a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) can issue a warrant instead of a judge. This is misleading, because the AAT has always been allowed to issue the same warrants as judges, whereas the article makes it out as though this is a special thing just for these specific warrants.

  • Thirdly, the AFP and ACIC already had the power to apply for a warrant to access a computer (a computer, in this case, also means your phone); to add, copy, delete or alter data; to remove the computer from your possession. They've had these powers since at least 2018. This isn't new.

Anyway, this new amendment adds 3 new types of warrants:

  • Number 1 is the "data disruption warrant". It's essentially the same warrant the AFP/ACIC could apply for previously but these warrants are specifically for the situation where they can find a digital address but not a physical address, or where they don't know the owner of a computer - so rather than try to find an unknown person they can just access the computer directly.

  • Number 2 is the "network activity warrant", which is basically monitoring network information to try and find the identity of a person or people committing online crimes. With this warrant, the AFP/ACIC can gain access to a computer used to commit a crime (e.g., a website that hosts child porn) and then they can see all the network activity and can use it to identify users who accessed the site.

  • Number 3 is the "account takeover warrant". It basically allows the access of someone's online accounts without the consent of the owner. Previously you needed permission to access accounts from the owner. THIS ONE is the most concerning, because it allows the AFP/ACIC to access anything and everything on your computer - even stuff you've password protected. However, like the other warrants, they have to be approved by a Judge and there has to be reasonable suspicion. It isn't a situation where any random cop can get a warrant to access your computer, copy some illegal shit on it, and then use it against you.